asl80 wrote:hey cairns - version 3's looking better than the first, but why the explorer helmet inlay(thingy), maybe keep it as an open playing field?

your probably already on the way to this - but giving the map a clear wellington-napoleon oppositional gameplay would be best?

hopefully will have a feel similar to pearl harbour, which is a beautiful map.(i.e. even if it's within territories, you could have figures with army circles beside - not too sure about the army no.s within the figures like the attempt above)

[EDIT]: P.S. - i voted for B thinking of something different - consider it changed to C, which i left alone picturing something like Gazala which i'm still a little unsure of (lines all over the place) ... pearl harbour has a greater focus on imagery and setting, as opposed to just schemata, though recreates the attack routes, and positions held, likely to have taken place. (Don't take the Gazala points to seriously though - have t go back and have a look at it {and still like it})

The point been, that it is getting the overall setting right that is most important, i.e. out on a field - assuming it was indeed so (or did they fight virtual wars back then too?), as well as making the player feel like they are holding a position, i.e. napolean, and advancing in his shoes with his army - assuming that the gameplay is organised so it is best to try and take sides so this can be recreated.

Would a possible way for making the taking of sides more likely be to have a few small bonuses at each end of the map (prob. northwestish and southeastish in this context), then some larger ones in the middle, followed by some medium ones that either side would ultimately contest for in the end to gain the upper hand in the balancing of power?

asl80 wrote:Would a possible way for making the taking of sides more likely be to have a few small bonuses at each end of the map (prob. northwestish and southeastish in this context), then some larger ones in the middle, followed by some medium ones that either side would ultimately contest for in the end to gain the upper hand in the balancing of power?

i have no knowledge of waterloo, but i looked at the poll and noticed the option for different shapes for infantry and artillary. anyway is it possible to add a certain amount of armies to them territories every turn.
For example Add 3 armies to artillary
Add 1 armies to infanty

militant wrote:i have no knowledge of waterloo, but i looked at the poll and noticed the option for different shapes for infantry and artillary. anyway is it possible to add a certain amount of armies to them territories every turn.For example Add 3 armies to artillary Add 1 armies to infanty

onbekende wrote:1 question for now: Artillary like Clinton (CA1 - CA3) can attack all of there color band or all of the next color band? And what about territories who fell in 1 sections? RC2 for example (far left).

Probably badly worded for now and needs changing...
but the idea is that artillary like CA1 can only bombard terts two sections ahead....not in their own section nor the section immediately in front, but the one after the one in front.

RC2 is Cavalry so they can't bombard....but i am thinking they might be able to attack two terts ahead as was suggested in this thread.

onbekende wrote:1 question for now: Artillary like Clinton (CA1 - CA3) can attack all of there color band or all of the next color band? And what about territories who fell in 1 sections? RC2 for example (far left).

Probably badly worded for now and needs changing...but the idea is that artillary like CA1 can only bombard terts two sections ahead....not in their own section nor the section immediately in front, but the one after the one in front.

RC2 is Cavalry so they can't bombard....but i am thinking they might be able to attack two terts ahead as was suggested in this thread.

aaaaah, indeed is good idea but better wording required

and that RC2 was just an example

Emperor of the BeneluxFounder of the Commonwealth of PlanetsFounder and CEO of JF

unriggable wrote:I agree, I don't like the whole anthill setup. Not to mention that some territories are hard to differentiate from others (green on the left).

Its actually not an ant hill (although that would be an idea since it has been posted as an idea in here before LOL)

It's the outline of Napoleon's Hat. Got It! Pertinent, isn't it?...if you guys start thinking outside of your normal boxes. Start asking...what is this guy designing here. You know I don't just make a map, some of my ideas are also designs - whether people like them or not.
And ask yourselves....why would he put an ant hill in the map of a war involving Napoleon? Is it meant to be something else? Then you might just not post some semi ridi idea that it being ant hill. Common guy...surely you can do better than that...use that thing you've supposedly got in your heads called a brain.

Next one...the colours are not set yet, and yes there has to be more differentiation given to them, but thanks for the input, as this is valid toward changing the colours and of course perhaps reducing the number of terits, which is in my plans.

3) Speaking of that explanation - I looked and Looked and LOOKED. Alas, I could only find 2 or 3 things that seemed like the MIGHT be the bands. These need to be fairly prominent and consistent in their shaping and shading.

4) Pretty much everything touches everything else - a big old free for all [Battle of Actium anyone?]. That's fine by me, just makes it harder to actually HOLD a bonus.

5) I love the flags - I think those should be used for commanders. Your artillery just seems too similar to your infantry symbol [which I like]. Maybe a stack of canon balls? As for calvary try crossed swords?

Of course, makings things bigger will only make the map seem even busier.

6) It looks like you tried or accidentally came close to matching the British terr background colors with those in the legend. Not so much for the French terr background colors.

3) Speaking of that explanation - I looked and Looked and LOOKED. Alas, I could only find 2 or 3 things that seemed like the MIGHT be the bands. These need to be fairly prominent and consistent in their shaping and shading.

4) Pretty much everything touches everything else - a big old free for all [Battle of Actium anyone?]. That's fine by me, just makes it harder to actually HOLD a bonus.

5) I love the flags - I think those should be used for commanders. Your artillery just seems too similar to your infantry symbol [which I like]. Maybe a stack of canon balls? As for calvary try crossed swords?

Of course, makings things bigger will only make the map seem even busier.

6) It looks like you tried or accidentally came close to matching the British terr background colors with those in the legend. Not so much for the French terr background colors.

Sorry to have such a long post.

aerial attack....it's not a long post, but very productive feedback...just what i was looking for...thank you.

I'll see what i can do now with all this information. sometimes the artist gets so involved they can't see the light on the hill STS.

below is his hat this was taken from....of course stretched in height ot fit the map.

Cairns - the shape of napolean's hat in the picture above is nice, but i must say the stretched transformation seems more like a safari hat. The concept is good, but keep the shape of the original, maybe rotate it 35-40o (degres) so that the point is down on the left a little and going across the page (if some of the corners get chopped off i wouldn't say that's a problem - so long as the shape, i.e. what the image is, can be discerned - the present transformation truly is a little misleading) - ultimately, at the same time as providing the space for the field of battle, it would be really nice if it could be only so slightly discernable as a transparency {if you could get it to not interfere with the practical bits of the map}, this would also help the case for not needing to see the whole hat.

P.S. - the battle took place on a hill didn't it? - If it's at all within your sights, i'd love to see a bit of a foreground/background setting, i.e a little more three dimensional (though not necc. 3D), i think the setting of this battle certainly urges it.
My thought is, that, Wellington's troops, placed a little to the north west of the map (i.e. within the hat that run's the opposite direction as mentioned above) would be presented as the highest point in your graphical representation, moving down to Napolean's army to the south east. (it seems the diagonal/slant would be a good way of representing slope)
Ahh, if this is the case, then the landscape, of the hill, could take up your whole map, though the playing area could still reamain within the hat, which now, is more of an outline - though still inclusionary(of the playing field)/exclusionary(of the bonus info and left over land etc). Here, the landscape outside of the hat could be shadded/dimmed/whatever's appropriate. This would also give you the chance of keeping some of the original hat's graphics around the unused verges.

asl80 wrote:Cairns - the shape of napolean's hat in the picture above is nice, but i must say the stretched transformation seems more like a safari hat. The concept is good, but keep the shape of the original, maybe rotate it 35-40o (degres) so that the point is down on the left a little and going across the page (if some of the corners get chopped off i wouldn't say that's a problem - so long as the shape, i.e. what the image is, can be discerned - the present transformation truly is a little misleading) - ultimately, at the same time as providing the space for the field of battle, it would be really nice if it could be only so slightly discernable as a transparency {if you could get it to not interfere with the practical bits of the map}, this would also help the case for not needing to see the whole hat.

P.S. - the battle took place on a hill didn't it? - If it's at all within your sights, i'd love to see a bit of a foreground/background setting, i.e a little more three dimensional (though not necc. 3D), i think the setting of this battle certainly urges it.My thought is, that, Wellington's troops, placed a little to the north west of the map (i.e. within the hat that run's the opposite direction as mentioned above) would be presented as the highest point in your graphical representation, moving down to Napolean's army to the south east. (it seems the diagonal/slant would be a good way of representing slope)Ahh, if this is the case, then the landscape, of the hill, could take up your whole map, though the playing area could still reamain within the hat, which now, is more of an outline - though still inclusionary(of the playing field)/exclusionary(of the bonus info and left over land etc). Here, the landscape outside of the hat could be shadded/dimmed/whatever's appropriate. This would also give you the chance of keeping some of the original hat's graphics around the unused verges.

asl80...this is now the 10th time i have tried to get this map into some form of a map for CC....and it is for all intense purposes working to a degree. I also probably don't have the skill you speak of to present the things you need.

I appreciate the length you proposed above, but at this time i don't want to change it from where it is at present, its is simply too much work.
As it is now the next stage is to put it into continents that are spearated somewwhat bny fences and hedge rows.

Yes the battle did take place on a hill, but that is vey hard to convey on a 2 dimensional map, especially if you want to have all the abilities of artillery and cavalry.

The shape of Napoleon's hat is also goping to remain unchanged as this allows the map with plenty of room for the bonus information around the outside. Sorry